Z
zerinus
Guest
I had a quick look. Didn’t have time to read it all. But that thread also focuses on the “full of grace” translation, which as I have shown here is incorrect.
zerinus
- Status
zerinus
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Gone to watch the President and the Pope…
Stephen168
New member
A Mormon that believes “if it isn’t in the bible it is false.” Very Interesting.
Again, That isn’t what Zerinus’ article is about.
Does this mean Zerinus doesn’t know what he was talking about?
D
dosdog
Guest
Just Read his blog - MY kingdom for some Gold Plates
O
onenow1
Guest
Hi, All
Here’s the probem with the case against transubstantion.
Jesus is the word made flesh he is not two persons, you cannot seperate his flesh and blood from from his spirit, the whole being of God is present, Body, Blood , Soul and Divinity.
Luke 24: 39- 41 KJV. Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me , and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as yee see me have. And when he had thus spoken he shewed them his hands and his feet. And whie they yet beieved not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them have yee here any meat.
Peace, OneNow1
Here’s the probem with the case against transubstantion.
Jesus is the word made flesh he is not two persons, you cannot seperate his flesh and blood from from his spirit, the whole being of God is present, Body, Blood , Soul and Divinity.
Luke 24: 39- 41 KJV. Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me , and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as yee see me have. And when he had thus spoken he shewed them his hands and his feet. And whie they yet beieved not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them have yee here any meat.
Peace, OneNow1
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
TO ZERINUS
**5. Didn’t the Church just invent the doctrine 150 years ago? **
Pope Pius IX officially defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in 1854. When Fundamentalists claim that the doctrine was “invented” at this time, they misunderstand both the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue, from time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals. They are under the impression that no doctrine is believed until the Pope or an ecumenical council issues a formal statement about it. (For abundant evidence that the sinlessness of Mary is not a new idea in the Church, visit www.catholic.com/answers/tracts/_fullgra.htm)).
Doctrines are defined formally only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when the Magisterium (the Church in its office as teacher; cf… Matt. 28:18–20; 1 Tim. 3:15, 4:11) thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief. The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the latter motive; it did not come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine. In fact, the Vatican was deluged with requests from people desiring the doctrine to be officially proclaimed. Pope Pius IX, who was highly devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mary, hoped the definition would inspire others in their devotion to her. By understanding the work that God has done in Our Lady, all should have greater appreciation for both him and her. For if one member of the body is honored, all should share in its joy (1 Cor 12:26).
***By Jason Evert ***
**5. Didn’t the Church just invent the doctrine 150 years ago? **
Pope Pius IX officially defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in 1854. When Fundamentalists claim that the doctrine was “invented” at this time, they misunderstand both the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue, from time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals. They are under the impression that no doctrine is believed until the Pope or an ecumenical council issues a formal statement about it. (For abundant evidence that the sinlessness of Mary is not a new idea in the Church, visit www.catholic.com/answers/tracts/_fullgra.htm)).
Doctrines are defined formally only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when the Magisterium (the Church in its office as teacher; cf… Matt. 28:18–20; 1 Tim. 3:15, 4:11) thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief. The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the latter motive; it did not come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine. In fact, the Vatican was deluged with requests from people desiring the doctrine to be officially proclaimed. Pope Pius IX, who was highly devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mary, hoped the definition would inspire others in their devotion to her. By understanding the work that God has done in Our Lady, all should have greater appreciation for both him and her. For if one member of the body is honored, all should share in its joy (1 Cor 12:26).
***By Jason Evert ***
Z
zerinus
Guest
If that is the best that you can do, then I guess we don’t have a lot left to talk about. Thanks for admitting that Transubstantiation is wrong though. That is a step forward I guess.
zerinus
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
No one has admitted that transubstantiation is wrong.
That someone doesn’t know what they’re talking about has been well established tho’
That someone doesn’t know what they’re talking about has been well established tho’
Z
zerinus
Guest
Okay, I just checked. The phrase “full of grace” in the salutation to Mary is derived from the incorrect translation of the Latin Vulgate, not the original Greek. The original Greek word means “highly favored”. It doesn’t mean “full of grace”. This is attested by the fact that all modern translations of the Bible, including Catholic ones, render it “highly favored,” not “full of grace”. You are trying to persuade me that all the modern translations of the Bible are wrong, including Catholic ones, and only the Latin Vulgate made by Jerome in the 4th century is correct. Okay, I am not a Latin or a Greek scholar; but I don’t buy that. The general consensus of the vast majority of the experts is different. That argument doesn’t cut it with me I am afraid.
zerinus
po18guy
Well-known member
OK. Find anyone else in scripture that is “highly favored”. See, we believe that Christ always existed as the begotten, not created, Son of God, and needed a perfect vessel to bring forth. This makes no sense to you, who believe Christ is a simple creation that has been somehow elevated. Right?.
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
It is unclear to me why you would ask for the citation and then not read it. I won’t waste my time that way again.
Z
zerinus
Guest
Of course she is “highly favored”. She was chosen to be the earthly mother of the Son of God. I can’t think of a greater “favor” than that “among women”. But that is a far cry from saying that she was “immaculately conceived”. No way!
zerinus
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
The problem for Zerinus, and we are wandering ever more far away from the topic, in understanding the Immaculate Conception of Mary may have, at its root, the understanding of the Godhead. Mormons do not view Jesus the same way that Christians do, and Mormons believe in eternal progression. For the origins of the humanity of Jesus to be rooted in sin may make sense to Mormons when you consider how they view Jesus to begin with.
There is no common understanding of terms here. No common acceptance of basic theology. Yet Christian theology is an entire body of interrelated concepts. Zerinus cannot be expected to understand or accept Immaculate Conception or Real Presence when his understanding of God is so different. This is why all these discussions go in circles. What is the point of that?
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
That is when Tradition comes in something you lack since you dont have apostolic succession. remember not everything was written in the SS. there was also many Oral information passed on down to the successores.
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
Mormons, including Zerinus, believe that what we call Sacred Tradition, is what they call the “apostasy”. Despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that an apostasy ever occurred, they believe that the Church founded by Jesus was basically gone from the earth within a very short time and what remained and survived was apostate. Hence, any “tradition” is viewed as apostate tradition and is therefore rejected.
When you consider that Joseph Smith was founding a new religion, in rejection of all others, there would have to be a mechanism for rejecting/ignoring nearly 2000 years of Christian development, so this idea of an apostasy would have to be part of the organization of the LDS church.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
That is what make the CC in rome so distinct from all others.
if we begin to analyze how this Church is rejected by all.
Orthodox churches, protestants, mormons, seventh day adventist, muslims, secular world, atheists etc…
everyone of them rejects something in this Church. it is really amazing. some even to the point of denying her existence on earth. they go around and around but this Church is always the focal point wether do know or not.
Glory be to Our God for all ages. Amen
"The catholic faith even when waterdown can boil the world into rags." Chesterton
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
You are correct that many humans have rejected the Church. But all those other churches were established by men. Ours was established by Jesus Christ. I’m sticking with Jesus! 
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
Does this make him the successor of St Peter?
D
dosdog
Guest
No - He is just another Dipwad - The Apostlic succession is in Rome
- Status